G. True Nelson: Former Deputy Sheriff, Military Officer, FBI Special Agent, and Security Consultant / Private Investigator. He currently resides in the Portland, Oregon Metro area. He is a writer on crime and judicial process; as well as discussing his personal observations on American culture and social mores.

RETURN

Thursday, October 29, 2015

Relevant to some recent school shootings, my topic for this
posting is ‘Assault Weapons.’

This is a subject that drives gun owners right up the
wall. Why? Because ‘assault weapons’
have become such an over-worked cliché generally bandied-about by those, including
politicians proposing laws, who cannot define what they are actually talking about.

To describe 'assault weapons' simply as ‘military type’ guns only exposes the lack of knowledge of the speaker. All guns have a military genesis – all guns. Guns were initially invented and developed to
kill people in war; and it was only later that they were used for hunting and
sport. And, one could say the same about
any number of common devices in use today, as well as some domestic animals; all of which were first and
principally developed and promoted for the purpose of human conflict.

Generally speaking, I hope we all understand that many guns are already banned or not available to the American public. Some of these can be obtained or displayed under very restrictive conditions and licensing standards. All automatic
weapons are banned. What does that
mean? Well, an automatic weapon is generally
a rifle type weapon (could be a pistol) that fires more than one round (a burst) ‘automatically’ when you pull the trigger.
In other words a ‘machine gun.’

Some in the public are familiar with the Thompson Sub-Machine Gun from
movies of the ‘gangster era,’ (Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger, and Baby Face
Nelson.)* In this context, it is sufficient to know
that ‘machine guns’ (automatic weapons), of all varieties, have been banned for
many decades – as they should be. In
more recent times, for reference purposes, the military version M-16 is an ‘automatic.’ That, too, is generally banned – not sold, and not legal to possess.

What is legal? Well, ‘semi-automatic’ rifles, pistols and shotguns are legal to possess. What does that mean? ‘Semi-automatic’ is one trigger pull, one round fires (self-loading). Some might immediately respond, ‘So what, it will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.’ Yes, you are right in that regard. However, the point is that semi-automatic weapons have been around for approximately 150 years and have been commonly used for hunting and sport most of that time.The military’s M-16 (fully automatic) has a civilian counterpart called the AR-15 (semi-automatic rifle). They look the same, but they are not. Many hunters like the AR-15 for various reasons – principally for its durability. On the other hand, most hunters would prefer other semi-automatic rifles and/or shotguns for their craftsmanship, quality, and performance.

So, what is the difference between the present-day,
civilian-owned, so-called ‘assault weapon’ and other semi-automatic rifles,
shotguns and pistols? Functionally,
there is no difference. It is all about
cosmetics. All have the same ‘killing’
potential in the hands of a mentally deranged shooter.

What then is the argument against civilian owned ‘assault weapons?’ Well, basically, there is no
valid argument. Unless, you are talking
about an illegal bootleg, modified, or stolen military weapon.

If you are a gun control advocate, and a gun owner should
ask you why you hold a position against guns, in an attempt to
engage you in civil discourse, be prepared to answer coherently. Please don’t automatically use the vague, meaningless statement,
‘We should ban all 'assault weapons’ or, even worse, in my opinion, ‘We should
ban all guns.’ If this is the sum of your incoherent comment, you will only have
accomplished exposing your lack of understanding of the issues, or dare I say your ignorance.

Magazine capacity for semi-automatics is another issue. And here, in my opinion, gun control
advocates have a valid argument. We’ll
talk more about this.

Addendum: Above Photo: Top is a common semi-auto hunting rifle. Bottom is the semi-auto AR-15.

True Nelson

* Baby Face Nelson is no relation, I’m happy to say, – his actual name
was Lester Joseph Gillis; and he was responsible for the murder of three FBI
Agents. Gillis was later killed by FBI
Agents in a shootout. If you had lived
in that period, and happened to meet Gillis, you would have required a ‘death
wish’ to address him as Baby Face. He
did not like that nickname. It was given
him, reportedly, because of his small stature and child-like face. The Nelson part was due to an alias he once used.

Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, this is basically what you should have learned in High School
Civics’ class ‘if you had been paying attention.’

The first ten amendments, known as the ‘Bill of Rights,’ were designed to protect a citizen’s
individual rights. They are rights
or protections guaranteed to us as individuals.
Read them and you will understand why they are individual rights and how
each of ten is important to you and me.
If you’ve never read the ‘Bill of
Rights,’ please do.

The Second Amendment is pretty straightforward – or is it? Personally, I think it is.

“A well-regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Many in the public (principally those who support stricter
regulatory gun control measures) point to the first part of the Second Amendment,
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State…”
They say that our Founding Fathers’ intention, in modern terms, was
referring to what we now call the National Guard, and not giving any special rights to
citizen gun owners. However, that is not
the case; and, thus far anyway, the U.S. Supreme Court concurs. The Second Amendment is an individual
right, as are the other nine amendments within the Bill of Rights. The important defining clause is the subsequent
wording within the Second Amendment: “…the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers could not have stated it
more clearly. Remember, the Bill of Rights were meant as protection for
the individual citizen, not to create an additional branch of the Army, which
is exactly what our National Guard has become.

But, one might argue, they are basically citizens and part-time
warriors – under the control of the Governor of each state; therefore defining
a ‘well-regulated Militia.’ OK, I’d say to that, rhetorically speaking, what
if a Governor said, ‘I’m not going to send my state’s young men and women into
combat.’ The Federal Government’s
response: ‘I’m not asking you if you
wouldn’t mind sending your National Guard unit, I’m telling you to send them
without delay – or else!’

And, if you follow these issues and the many combat deployments
required of the National Guard these days, you would realize that the U.S.
Government is depending more and more on the Reserve and Guard units to fight wars.

Some in the public, I suppose, might read the Second
Amendment as an opportunity for the Federal Government to bolster their
military might in all respects, including overseas deployment and combat. OK, but can you honestly say that
interpretation has anything to do with the individual rights of a citizen? On the contrary, you would have to say that
the Second Amendment, of the First Ten Amendments, is the outlier and the only one
that does not apply to the individual; and is in fact a right given to the
government over its’ citizens. But, if
you were to say that, you would be wrong.

Saturday, October 17, 2015

I have spent much of my professional career conducting security
reviews at numerous facilities, including addressing some security issues at
schools. Admittedly, most of my
experience was at manufacturing, distribution, and office complex locations. And, I must admit that I have never visited Umpqua Community College,
but I do have some suggestions for their administration based on my
experiences.

Contrary to their current status, unarmed security personnel
at the college is a mistake. Although
the school may feel that the concept of unarmed security protects them, in some
way, from potential liability situations, it does not provide any actual ‘security.’

For consideration: The Clackamas Community College, south of
Portland, has ‘armed security.’ The
Clackamas County Sheriff has had the good sense to ‘deputize’ security
personnel at said community college, and allow them to participate in
appropriate training. Why doesn’t the
Sheriff in Douglas County do the same?

It is my opinion all colleges (and I would include
elementary through high schools), throughout the State, should be gun-free
zones (no ‘open carry,’ no ‘concealed carry’) unless special authorization is
given to a particular individual. I professionally
carried a gun on my person for several years and know that it can be a
considerable hassle to maintain and protect.
In my opinion, ‘open carry,’ where allowed, is just an accident waiting
to happen. In addition, someone openly
carrying a gun could be quickly and easily disarmed – the gun then used on its
owner and others. ‘Concealed carry’ has
many of the same issues as ‘open carry.’
Those with ‘concealed carry permits’ should probably be allowed to keep
guns in their cars, but not allowed to carry on campus. Guns appearing on campus should set-off an
immediate lock-down, security notified, local law enforcement summoned.

Many things can be done to improve security on campus – and there
are improvements that are relatively easy and inexpensive. Locks on classroom and office doors, plus ‘panic
alarms’ are some examples - video surveillance another. A full analysis by a qualified security consultant
would be helpful. (This is not a
solicitation for business. I am now
retired.) Schools often depend upon local law enforcement to conduct a
security review. Local law enforcement
is a cheaper alternative. Unfortunately,
they are generally not qualified to do this sort of analysis, and are usually
not current on potentially useful technology.

One procedure that proved beneficial in the business realm
was a ‘hotline.’ This would be a
dedicated number that faculty or students could call (24 hours a day), remain
anonymous, and report concerns about security issues. These reports need to be thoroughly
investigated and evaluated.

In the long run, certainly not a quick fix, colleges should
consider how security might be improved in their newer facilities and campus renovations. Card access to certain areas might be one
suggestion; focused ingress and egress another.

The Umpqua Community College murders, as tragic as they
were, will probably never be repeated there in our lifetimes; at least I hope
not. We have to be realistic about these
incidents and recognize that they are exceedingly rare, that there are no easy answers,
and no guarantees. Life is sometimes
dangerous and unforgiving. Every
security measure conceivable would probably not have prevented the deaths at
the college.

However, there is one aspect that haunts me. Chris Harper Mercer didn’t crawl out from
under a rock. People knew him, socialized
with him, and lived with him. Chances
are that he was receiving some form of psychiatric assistance. Someone knew or suspected he was potentially dangerous. That someone failed to report those
suspicions. Even more likely, if there
was such a person, they would say, ‘OK, report it to whom?’ Asked that question, my answer would be, ‘I
don’t know.’ Some might suggest reporting
it to local law enforcement. That person
is unfamiliar with law enforcement and how it works, how it prioritizes their
responsibilities.

For example, take a walk down Portland streets. You will see countless mentally handicapped,
drug-addled people hanging-out on corners, begging, or sleeping under
bridges. Are most of them dangerous? Probably not.
Are some of them dangerous – if triggered by an inexplicable, perhaps an
innocuous situation or slight? Yes,
without doubt. What are we doing about
it? Nothing!

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

Regarding the renewed efforts / public demands for
additional gun legislation (gun control) as a result of the murders at the
Umpqua Community College, I would like to address some of the comments that are
used to attack gun advocates and owners; often put forth in, what I consider to
be, an uninformed and often a most condescending way.

I am a gun owner. I
like to shoot guns. I like the
craftsmanship that goes into a quality gun; and understand why some people
collect them. Moreover, I think guns
still play a positive role in our society in hunting, sport and family
protection. Are they misused? Yes, of course.

I was once a hunter, but I guess it has been a few decades
since I last hunted. There was a pivotal
moment. I remember it well. I came home with a couple of pheasants that I
had shot earlier in the day, laid them out on some newspapers and prepared to
‘clean’ them. My young daughter came to
see what I was doing. Her comment was,
“Daddy, did you have to kill them?” I
still remember that moment and the look on her sad face. I didn’t answer. I couldn’t.
If I had answered, I would have had to say, ‘No honey, I didn’t. I’m sorry.’
But, that was it. I was a hunter
no longer. And, I must say that I
haven’t missed it much. Oh, there is
something to be said about the comradeship and excitement of hunting. But now, I’m thrilled when a pheasant walks
through my back yard. I grab my
binoculars. Pheasants are after all
beautiful birds. I’m not against hunting
you understand. It’s just a personal
thing with me.

There are considerable (perhaps unbridgeable) differences
between ‘gun advocates’ and the ‘gun control crowd.’ Personally, I’ve fielded more than a few disparaging
comments in the guise of good-natured kidding.
It’s uncomfortable when you are surrounded by like-minded ‘gun control’
people – particularly those who know little or nothing about guns. Have you noticed that in a group everyone
resorts to ‘bumper-sticker’ logic (or lack thereof)? Statement:
“We should ban assault weapons!” Counter
Statement: “You can have my gun when you
pry it from my cold dead fingers.” OK, I
realize the last comment would be a rather long ‘bumper-sticker,’ but you get
the idea.

Regarding the Umpqua Community College shooting, were you
surprised at how quickly the politicians jumped in to politicize the actions of
a psychopathic killer, and then blame it largely on guns? I wasn’t.
My immediate thought, ‘shameful.’
But, as we well know, most politicians were born unable to feel
shame. That’s why they became
politicians.

The following are some of my favorite discussion points
regarding ‘gun control.’ Stick with me,
you might find that I am somewhat of a moderate and could / would be receptive
to some compromising, and additional legislation. Oh, and why did I resign from the NRA? I’ll explain.

Here are some topics that I will be discussing from a gun
owner’s, gun advocate’s perspective:

How might security at a school like the Umpqua Community
College be improved?

The Second Amendment and the inceptive clause “A
well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,…”

Friday, October 9, 2015

Dr. Ben Carson stepped out on the thin ice when he publically
discussed a couple of his views on gun violence and legislation. With some qualification, and as something of
an authority on gun violence and protection practices, I would be happy to walk
out on that ice with Dr. Carson.

In the context of the Umpqua College mass murder, he
mentioned that individuals in that situation should immediately resist, even
attack the shooter; and not allow the shooter to take control of the
situation. I tend to agree. That is the best option.

However, it is very ‘human,’ when faced with immediate
danger and possible death, to acquiesce and cooperate with the assailant. Even among mature adults, it would be very unusual
for someone to spring into action and theoretically rush an armed individual –
facing, what would be perceived to be at the time, almost certain death. Some would do it; and reportedly some did
demonstrate exceptional courage at the college.
Most would not. Unless, they have
received training to overcome those natural tendencies to submit. Such training is what the military and law
enforcement attempts to instill in their personnel; but with far less than 100%
success.

I have given presentations at various seminars on personal
protection measures. An example might
be: A woman is walking to her car at
night in a mall parking lot. She is
confronted by a man with a gun who orders her into his car. My recommendation to the ladies in attendance
was to fight back, run and scream as loud as they can. Do not, under any circumstances, get into the
car. Women sometimes have responded that
they would be afraid that the assailant would shoot them as they ran. My answer:
Yes, he might shoot, but odds are he won’t. But, if he does shoot and hits you, your
chance of survival is very good – emergency services would be there
quickly. If, however, you get into the
car, you will have given your assailant the opportunity to kill you at his
leisure. This is an example where
training might instill in a woman a proper, and statistically preferential, reaction
to a threat.

Secondly, Dr. Carson referred to the ‘Holocaust,’ and the
confiscation of weapons that took place prior to rounding-up the Jews and other
minorities – stating that an armed Jewish population could have launched a
significant resistance. He has been criticized by the uninformed and the liberal media (of course) that he had stated or implied
that personal weapons could have prevented the ‘Holocaust.’ I don’t think he said that or even remotely
implied it. In my opinion, Dr. Carson is
exactly right. What was the Jewish
option at the time? Walk to the train
station and be loaded on box cars, or be forced to your knees and shot on the
spot; because the Jews at that juncture had no real way to resist the Nazi maniacal
machine.

This is at the heart of the gun rights issue. Some believe that the government, under all
circumstances, will protect them. I don’t
happen to agree. You’d have to be a
little dense, in my humble opinion, to not understand that civilization, as we
know it, could be swept away in an instant.
Will it happen tomorrow, next year, fifty or a hundred years from
now? No one knows for sure. It could be a natural disaster, or even man
caused. Some will say if that should
happen that they are willing ‘to go gentle into that dark night.’ Some will say that they will resist with
their last breath. I prefer to associate
with the latter group.

Wednesday, October 7, 2015

The murders at Umpqua Community College, to one degree or
another, have impacted all of Oregon’s residents. It hits so close to home. And, why Roseburg, Oregon, of all places?

I had an appointment with a doctor a couple of days back and
she, knowing a little about my background, asked me what I thought about the
incident in Roseburg. We didn’t have a
lot of time to chat you understand, so I think she expected me to sum-up my
opinion in as few words as possible. I
wasn’t sure what to say. I answered
something like, “It was tragic, awful; but, nonetheless, difficult to prevent.” It was clear that she wanted to tell me what
she thought. I think this woman is a wonderful
doctor, compassionate and very smart, but she stated: “Well, I don’t think that anyone other than
police and the military should even have guns.”
I was disappointed. My response to
her was weak and pathetic, “I don’t think that’s very practical.”

And, so goes the conversation between those
of us who own and appreciate guns and those who abhor them. Where guns are concerned, the bridge between
she and I, as well as others like her, has long since crumbled. It seems that there can be no handshake, no
compromise, and no middle ground.

So, I’ve decided to write about guns and my thoughts, as well as my experience with guns. I won’t attempt to dazzle you with obscure
statistics – most of which are construed to project someone's personal bias. The public, gets plenty of that in the Op Ed
articles in the newspaper, authored by writers who generally reside in upscale,
gated communities and often have little in the way of actual experience when it
comes to guns, crime and the prevention of gun violence. They largely write about their feelings and support those feelings with what information they can dredge-up from multiple, questionable sources that vaguely support their preconceived opinion.

‘It’s about gun control,’ they might say – ‘the time is now
and we must do something.’ ‘And what is gun
control? What does that mean,’ I ask. ‘You know what it means,’ they respond. ‘Everyone knows,’ they continue. ‘I don’t know, tell me.’ ‘Well, for one thing they should ban assault
weapons.’ ‘And what do you mean by an
assault weapon?’ ‘You know!’ ‘Yes, I have a pretty good idea about what
you call an assault weapon, but you tell me what you think they are.’ Becoming frustrated, they terminate the
discussion. They have decided that I am
not only a gun nut, but I am also a smart ass.

Before proceeding, I feel I must make some effort to establish
my bona fides. I don’t consider myself a
gun expert or a ‘gun nut’ for that matter.
However…

I have served in law enforcement at the local and federal
level. I’ve been in the military. I was in corporate security with a Fortune
500 company for almost twenty years, traveled extensively, and dealt with
security issues and investigations at international manufacturing, distribution
and corporate locations. Workplace
violence issues and prevention were considered a high priority aspect of my
responsibilities. Remember the days when
‘Going Postal’ was a popular catch phrase.
In more recent years, I had my own security consulting firm in Portland.

As an Agent in the FBI, I taught firearms proficiency and
safe practices to police officers. I’ve
done civilian competitive shooting and have won some competitions. I’ve owned and handled guns since I was
fifteen years old. I know and respect
guns, and consider myself a moderate and responsible gun owner. I have in the past belonged to the NRA. I no longer belong. And, in good time, I will explain why I
discontinued my membership.

I would like to give you my thoughts. I think there is some middle ground to be
established – if all of us are just a little open-minded.

Saturday, October 3, 2015

When it comes to criminal investigations, I've never been one to believe a whole lot in coincidence.What's the connection, and I don't necessarily mean a physical connection, between Zachariah Peterson and Chris Harper Mercer (the Roseburg killer)?Peterson apparently intended to attack and murder teachers and staff at a Christian school. Chris Mercer lined-up his victims, asked if they were Christians and, when they acknowledged that they were, he shot them in the head.Coincidence? Doubtful. Power of the press to create deadly 'copycats? Likely.True Nelson

Three Laws for Effective Gun Control

Here are three potential laws that I would recommend for effective gun control:

1) Convicted felon in possession of a gun: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

2) Knowingly selling or furnishing a gun to a convicted felon: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole.

3) Theft of a gun, during the commission of a felony: automatic three years in prison - no judicial discretion - no chance for parole - sentence in addition to any time associated with the attendant felony.